Great film, lots of symbolism and a family story to boot

The Devil’s Advocate (marketed as Devil’s Advocate) is a 1997 American supernatural horror film directed by Taylor Hackford, written by Jonathan Lemkin and Tony Gilroy, and starring Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino and Charlize Theron. Based on Andrew Neiderman’s 1990 novel, it is about a gifted young Florida lawyer invited to work for a major New York City law firm. As his wife becomes haunted by frightening visions, the lawyer slowly realizes that the firm’s owner John Milton is the Devil.

  • jetOPMA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago
    end-of-film-discussion

    A nearly 30 year old film doesn’t really need spoiler warnings, but why not.

    Was the entire film a alternative reality? Did the devil roll back time at the end? Was it all a fantasy of temptation?

    If it was a vision, what purpose did it serve?

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      My impression was that the rejection of the devil meant that the events were undone, as old scratch had bent reality in the process. Kind of like a rubber band being stretched until the snapping point, but instead of snapping, someone cuts whatever is pulling on one end.

      Had he accepted his role as a servant of satan, claiming his heritage and all it implied, Lomax would have caused the band to snap, and the reality that was being created would become solidified. But until he accepted, the reality was a possibility, just one that was occurring within its own frame of reference.

      It wasn’t so much an alternate reality as it was a failed reality.

      A lot of the film revolves around some of the more loose ideas around satan. One of which is that “he” lacks the power of creation, but can warp the world, influence it, and change it.

      Thus, what he does is plant his seed in the world, and move things until reality warps into the image he wants. But, at any point his plans are thwarted, reality snaps back to the state it was before he makes his move.

      Iirc, at the end, there’s an indication that satan could still try and use Lomax to bend reality again, that the seed he planted that is Lomax could always grow again, starting a new attempt to warp reality to Satan’s whims.

      I never got the impression it was a vision or temptation only. It would have served a similar role, because if it were a vision, it was obvious that it was a vision that would have overwritten reality to become the new reality rather than a test run that would have to be repeated to reach the same point in space-time.

      On the meta level, it seemed like a strong directorial choice so that the stakes were very real. The people involved really did experience the events, but once Satan’s power was rejected, he lost his grip on the section of reality he was pulling on

      • jetOPMA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It wasn’t so much an alternate reality as it was a failed reality.

        Very elegantly said!

        once Satan’s power was rejected, he lost his grip on the section of reality he was pulling on

        Once the protentional reality dissolved, everyone seems to have lost their memories except satan and his son.

        • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Yup!

          My take is that the reason the son remembers is that he, too, has that seed of power. He’s also “outside” of the standard reality.

          Which, thinking about it now, could have been the entire point. If satan gets his son to join, great. But even if he doesn’t, the son now knows his power, his otherness. It would be a constant temptation, and a constant lever into the world. One of those long term power plays

    • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I don’t get the logic that discussing the end of a 30 year old film shouldn’t require spoiler tags. There are 20 year olds out there who may never have heard of the film, it’s not their fault they haven’t seen it yet. Maybe they’d enjoy it?

      Robbing someone of an experience you enjoyed or that at least provoked discussion just because they didn’t get to it in time is… I dunno. Bad adjective.

      • jetOPMA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        i did put spoiler tags around the discussion…

        • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          I mean, I realize that. I was responding to the the first line you put in there, which was….

          Anyway, man. This isn’t a personal dig at you. It’s a general comment on a common sentiment I find online and with which you opened your response to the post.

          👍🏻